One of the reasons the debate over network neutrality is so confusing is that the term itself is so slippery. It has an engineering meaning to engineers and an ideological meaning to ideologues while to businesses, it seems to mean\u201d\u201dnot surprisingly\u201d\u201dwhatever best serves their interests.<\/p>\n
The extent of the confusion became clear today with a story in the Wall Street Journal saying that Google, a leader of the net neutrality charge, \u201chas approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content.\u201d\u009d What Google hopes to do, as explained in a blog post by the company\u2019s Washington telecom counsel, Richard Whitt, is to speed the delivery of its content by \u201cco-locating\u201d\u009d servers within the networks of Internet service providers, such as Verizon or Comcast, a privilege for which it would, of course, have to pay. \u201cDespite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday\u2019s Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open,\u201d\u009d he writes.<\/p>\n
Does this violate the principles of net neutrality? It depends on whom you ask.<\/p>\n